Rules:- Pro and Con will avoid debating the merits of IQ as a metric, or race as a classification system. While these are certainly debatable, being largely seperate and rather nuanced subjects, they would be best suited to their own debates.

Note that, as a result, race will not be defined for the purposes of the debate. Given that virtually all data on the subject relies on self-identification, there should be no need for it either.- BOP is initially shared but can be debated/shifted- No new points should be brought up beyond Round 3- No kritiks- My opponent will not attempt to define "race" for the purposes of the debate- All sources must be provided in-text of the debate- Keep it civil- Violation of the rules merits a loss

Stances:- Pro will argue that racial IQ gaps are owed to genetic differences between racial groups. At least to a significant degree.- Con will argue that the racial IQ gaps are not owed to genetic differences between racial groups. Either in the absolute, or to any non-negligible extent

A meta-analysis [2] published in Personnel Psychology, 2001, found that American blacks, on average, score around one standard deviation (15 points) lower than American whites. The article aggregated 105 previous studies, with a collective sample size of over 6 million. All participants were at least 14 years of age.

Gaps in average IQ between racial groups have been observed, largely unchanged, since data collection on the subject began. As the results of a 2013 review demonstrated [1]:

These gaps persist across the socioeconomic spectrum, and cannot be directly explained by average differences in socioeconomic status (SES) between racial groups. Herrnstein and Murray 1994 [4] found that the size of the gap actually increases in accordance to SES level:

Other analyses, such as Gottfredson 2003 [3], Jensen 1998 [5], and Loehlin, Lindzey, and Spuhler 1975 [6] found the same trend.

Given the natural history of racial groups and race differences, it is perfectly reasonable to expect differences in cognitive ability as well. Human racial groups vary in a wide variety of traits, including susceptibility to certain diseases [15], and non-superficial geographical adaptations [17]. Given that blacks and whites have unequal levels of admixture with Neanderthals [8], there is even more reason to expect cognitive differences.

Even more specifically, we know that racial groups differ in brain size [9] [10] [11]. Additionally, we know from monozygotic twin studies that brain size is extremely heritable - over 80%. On the individual level, brain size is connected to cognitive performance, as a 2005 meta-analysis found that people with larger brains tend to score higher on IQ tests [13]. This is not entirely conclusive, though it does make the genetic explanation of the gaps worthy of serious consideration.

However, there is an increasing amount of data on the distribution of genes that may impact IQ across racial groups. For example, Wu and Zhang 2011 [12] found varying levels of differentiation regarding a variety of functional genes, between certain populations (Africans, Asians, and Europeans).

Note the position of hindbrain and neurondevelopment, contrasted with that of pigmentation.

Some of the most compelling evidence for a genetic explanation comes in the form of genome-wide analysis studies (GWAS). With genetic data from certain racial/ethnic populations, a 2015 paper [14] used individual SNPs strongly associated with IQ on the individual level to predict the IQs of said populations. The results almost exactly matched the actual IQs of those populations in developed countries:

"It is a conclusion reached upon preponderance of all the evidence not merely what they stated in the book."
that's interesting, given you said the book is "propaganda for eugenics". of course, davie is always free to cite some evidence.

"You're accusing me of an irrelevant conclusion fallacy"
davie thinks tacking "x fallacy" onto his gibberish makes him smart... a good debater, even! if you can imagine that.

of course, davie similarly thinks calling the badthink names will make it disappear. because the badthink implies eugenics, apparently. this shows davie's sense of morality is totally skewed and irrelevant. don't be like davie.

additionally, davie himself commits a half-baked tu quoque, in an attempt to run... take note that at no point did he say I was -wrong- in my accusation. a cowardly move that suits him all too well

Even the dog in the parking lot knows the folks that put that together didn't up and volunteer they were advocating for eugenics. It is a conclusion reached upon preponderance of all the evidence not merely what they stated in the book. Your request is a fallacy of suppressed evidence.

Murray's advocacy of eugenics is robustly established.

You're accusing me of an irrelevant conclusion fallacy, but if memory serves, you never reach the basic burden your resolution requires. This topic is a resolution of fact, where the burden is on the advocate to show the claim is true. You must show a causal link to your conclusion that the gap is explained by race, and you volunteer that your conclusion is an assumption.

Certain aspects of The Bell Curve have been criticized. Not that I care since I'm not citing the whole book - see the page number? Last time you had a tantrum over this, you sent me a load of links, none of which looked at the specific claim that was being cited.

to make things interesting though... give me a quote from the Bell Curve that shows it is "propaganda for eugenics". -A- quote